tv Tucker Carlson Tonight FOX News January 14, 2019 9:00pm-10:00pm PST
al pveron to shorten colds. i am a zifan for zicam. oral or nasal. from capital one.nd i switched to the spark cash card i earn unlimited 2% cash back on everything i buy. and last year, i earned $36,000 in cash back. which i used to offer health insurance to my employees. what's in your wallet? have a good night. ♪ ♪ >> tucker: good evening and welcome to "tucker carlson tonight." we want to bring the latest on what was really a remarkable story that broke late friday in "the new york times," we didn't have time to address it then. according to what are apparently high-level sources within the department of justice, in 2017 the fbi secretly began an investigation into whether the president is in fact a russian agent. the fbi apparently believed the president trump could be a one-man sleeper cell personally taking direct orders from his handlerson in moscow and working
from within the oval office to subvert this country. the fbi says they believed that could have happened so they spied, apparently, on the president of the united states. shocking doesn't even to begin to describe the story. nothing like this has ever happened in this country. these allegations are literally without precedent. that is not over statement. by the way, the allegations are not true. the fbi did not find that donald trump is a russian agentd no charges were ever filed against him. none will be. but an equally important question remains unanswered. how did this happen? deciding a sitting president be investigated for treason is not a small thing. officials within the fbi had to push for this investigation and then marshal evidence to justify it. leaders at the very highest levels of the agency had to sign off on the whole thing. all of that happened. but on what grounds exactly? that's whatgr we would need to
know in order to understand thi this. thanks to the times story we have some sense of the answer. if yousw are imagining a secret transmitter covered in cyrillic scripts discovered hidden in the lincoln bedroom, no. think again. there were no cloak and dagger clues in this case apparently. the fbi assumed that donald trump might be a russian agent not because of anything he did in secret but because of things he did -- said in public. a very public, standing on the stage on camera while running for president. here's one of them. >> there's nothing i can think of that i would rather do than have russia friendly as opposed to the way they are right now. wouldn't it be nice if we actually got along as an example with russia? e i'm all for it. >> tucker: that was then candidate from speaking at a press conference in florida in july of 2016. according to the fbi, the words you just heard are evidence that trump may have betrayed thisus country. that's their view. but there's another way to look
at those words. maybe trump is right. russia is a nuclear armed power on the other side of the planet. it does not have the power to invade the t united states. it can't close international shipping lanes, it is not seriously threaten our key allies like japan or great britain. isis there some reason than that we should inherently be in conflict with russia? is there more over vast public support in this country for fighting a a proxy war in syria with the kremlin? and how many american parents anxious to send their kids to die for the territorial and integrity of ukraine? an issue that we are supposed to think is very important. outside a few neighbors in washington, not very many people it turns out. so trump did raise a fair question at that press conferenceai in 2016, in washington, saying that out loud is considered treason. >> vladimir putin policies almost being parroted byna donald trump. you had him say only nice things about putin. he never spoke ill about russia.
>> tucker: never spoke ill about russia. that's the evidence united states senator holds up to prove that the president may be working for our enemies. so maybe trump does like russia, who knows?oe by the way, he's allowed to if he wants to. it doesn't make them evil, it just means he disagrees with prevailing orthodoxyt in d.c. ad that's okay. we're supposed to have spirited debates over questions like this. but no longer. policy differences are no criminal offenses. today on cnn professional dumpers and max booth listed 18 reasons the president may be a russian spy. if you look to the reasons, a lot of them turned out to be political positions that he just doesn't agree with, firing jim comey, pulling out of syria, criticizing the european union. and this is our favorite one, we are quoting, "supporting populist."ca the permanent war caucus in washington has succeeded in criminalizing dissent from their
agenda. by the way, if it were happening in a less developed country we would know exactly what to call it, it's an attempted coup.wo a political leader gets elected on the platform that law enforcement agencies don't like so those agencies try to put him in jail. if it happens all the time and other places, now it's happening here. former fbi lawyer and anti-trump activist lisa page described the fbi's thinking in her closed-door testimony before congress. russia is the most dangerous country in the world she reportedly said because russia works to "weaken our ability, america's ability and the west's ability to spread our democratit ideals. " so spreading our democratic ideals, that's with the iraq war is, now the most important thing that america does. the one thing we must defend at all costs. when did fbi lawyers start talking like neocon propagandists? no wonder max boot is on board with this.n our entire media and political classes are with max boot and
lisa page too. they have lost their minds. this past september nbc news breathlessly reported that russia was using "sophisticated microwaves to cause brain damage to u.s. diplomats in cuba. no surprise there. it sounds like something that was dastardly russians would do just because. now months later scientists have determined the kremlin probably didn't have anything to do with that. if the real culprit? noise from crickets. and by the way, not even russian cricketsan. indies short tailed crickets. nonslavic crickets. whatever. the media didn't correct the story. if they ignored it and they moved on. they know who the bad guys are. evidence does not deter their story line. russian espionage is so widespread in fact that the act of denying that you spy for russia is no confirmation that you did. watch. >> the>> president's tweet tryig to make the case that he's not a russian accent really just undercuts his own defense.
the president's tweet couldn't have been scripted better if it was written by putin himself. someone has to have told the president that undercutting the fbi, insulting past presidents and members of the u.s. government and criticizing their actions to keep us safe is really advancing russia's mission. our own intelligence community has said that those very things are exactly what russia is after.a so in the president's response is really just making russia's job easier. >> tucker: you say you're not aou russian agent, therefore we are russian agent. who puts these people on tv? that's a question we should think about. over the weekend, speaking of television, cnn president jeff zucker declared that anyone who isn't spreading fear of russia is doing the bidding of russia. he didn't say that himself of course, he rarely speaks in public.ak instead he said his marionette out as he often does to deliver the message. >> i was watching "good morning america" this weekend and both
mornings they lead with snowstorms and scares at malls and other stories and not this. and i just keep wondering if the president is ill-served if we don't make it really clear what the stakes of the story are. how can they not lead with this drama is a guess what i'm saying? >> i think plenty of times we lead with this drama. >> tucker: so the unit cuts to the steps of the palace and reached the population. message received, thank you vern much, but take three steps back, is the media is probably that it doesn't talkou about russia enough? it doesn't seem like that's the problem. >> whether the president was working for russia. >> whether donald trump was secretly working on behalf of russia. >> whether trump was secretly working on behalf of russia. >> whether president trump was secretly working on behalf of russia. >> whether the president was wsecretly working with russia against america. >> whether he was secretly working on behalf of the
russians. >> whether trump was secretly working on behalf of russia. whether president trump was working on behalf of russia. >> whether president trump was working on russia's behalf. >> whether the sitting president was secretly working for russia. >> whether president trump was working for russia from the oval office. >> tucker: does every show on cable news have the same writer? yeah, it's the dnc. if you've heard the script so many times that it's like background noise, muzak in an elevator. we never pause to ask the obvious question, does it make sense? d does what they are saying logically add w up? that trump is doing the bidding of russia? let's assess it just for a second. if you are russia, let's say are vladimir putin, how would you try to undermine american interest? who probably try to get america stuck in costly expensive foreign wars. if you would look at iraq and afghanistan and he would say those wars have made america much weaker. why not try and replicate that experience and say syria and libya? you might encourage america to do that.
you might also encourage the u.s. to adopt a self-destructive energy policy.t you would have the american government sharply restrict the exploration of oil and natural gas in the name of the environment so that america produces less energy. why would you do that? because global energy prices would rise in the u.s. would have to import more. who would?o russia. a petro state. their economy is dependent on energy. ot trump, andta this is weird behavior for a secret russian agent has done just the opposite of that. the united states foras the firt time in my lifetime is an energy exporter. in fact, it's the largest producer of oil and gas in thedu world. is that good for russia? no it's not. who's pushing the opposite? weirdly if the left. they are the one pushing a green new deal that would have this country shutting down oil and gas wells across the nation. someday we are going to look back in shame and confusion and wonder how so many supposedly smart people went completely off the deep end.
that's the task for future historians. for now it is time for some radical transparency. last fall the president or to the declassification and release of carter page's b16 application. how did an american citizen who clearly didn't act as an agent for russia have his phones tapped in his email read by the federal government? on what basis? we have a right to know that. we still don't. the president ordered it. he also ordered the unredacted release of all text messages related to the russiare investigation sent by jim comey, andrew mccabe, peter strzok, lisa page and bruce ohr. the fbi officials. instead of releasing them the department of justice dithered for reasons that were never really clear. if the president got distracted and we've never seen those documents. i's obvious at this point that the reason for not releasing them isn't protecting american national security, they just leaked the information about the fbi investigation to "the new york times" on friday. clearly have no problem leaking information when it helpsew the. they haven't been released because those documents might embarrass the fbi.
this endless shadow investigation has caused vastly more harm to this country than any russian facebook ad. the president should order then declassification of all documents related to this. it's clearly an abuse of federal power. if you want to restore confidence in the federal government, bring in some sunlight. tell the doj to do that. and if doj personnel refused to doo that, fire them and replace them with people who understand that they serve elected leaders, which is to say the electorate, which is to say voters, the people, and not the other way around. the president appears afraid to do this. he seems to be intimidated by his own lawyers, but why? can official washington due to him out? call him a russian agent? plan to impeach him? too late, they already have. former assistant assistant u.s. attorney for the southern district of new york and he joins us tonight. i don't want to overstate this but reading the justifications in the times story for this investigation into a sitting president, it seems like fbi
officials disagreed with his policy positions on russia. is that an appropriate pretext for criminal investigation? >> no it's not. i it's not an appropriate pretext for the fbi for any investigation. and i must say that listening to your monologue, it occursng to e that since the soviet union fell it's been the purpose of this governmentee it seems under administrations in both parties to treat russia as if it were england. and i remember the obama debate with mitt romney where romney suggested thatre russia was a geopolitical -- -- are the gret geopolitical enemy and obama mocked him for that. obama in a conversation with dmitry medvedev, basically the cats claw for putin, said thinking he's not being heard, as soon as i get by this election i will have more flexibility. i imagine if trump hadav said these sorts of things -- i must say listening to all that seems
like trump is the guy who was left without a chair when the music stopped because all of a sudden, everything that was regular and fine is now -- now russia is back to being -- i guess we are back in the cold war. and i think i t probably find russia to be more of a threat than you do but the fbi is not supposed to be doing policy. if that's not their job. >> tucker: so why was there -- there's a lot that were don't know. but from that story and no one has contacted the basic facts that i have seen, officials and the fbi sat down and decided it is unacceptable for an elected leader to come to these policy conclusions, therefore there must be some sinister motive. why did no one in the fbi say wait a second, this is demonstrably not our job, we are not allowed to do this? >> because they didn't start doing it in may of 2017. in may of 2017, all they did was as a formal paper matter they
opened an investigation specifically on trump but it was the same investigation that had been being conducted for a year. i keep going back to this dossier. you mentioned the warrant that they got on carter page. that wasav mainly on the steel dossier. the dossier is not about carter page and it's not even about in a moscow hotel. the theory of the dossier is that trump and russia, trump and the kremlin, trump personally and the kremlin, are in a i conspiracy, and espionage conspiracy to subvert the election so that trump can get in and do russia's bidding. that was whatus they went to the fisa court with in order to get a warrant on carter page. so the theory behind this ifso u look at the dossier, guys like carter page and paul manafort and cohen, they are sort of the emissaries between the trump
side of the conspiracy on the kremlin side but the whole thing is about trump. and it was always about trump tand all that happened in may f 2017 as they went overt in their files on something they had been covertly doing for over a year. >> tucker: were the only one i've heard make that point, really smart point. thank you very much for that. over a year. unbelievable t. former cia officer and a whistle-blower who knows the federal government very well g through hard experience. thanks very much for coming on tonight. so you read that story in "the new york times" on friday, tell me if it ratified or contradicted what you've already believed about how government works. >> this absolutely ratified what i believed about government. first of all, andrew mccarthy is exactly right. this is what the fbi does. and it predates 2017 by at least a year. don't forget that the cia has
counter intelligence center that very, very closely with the fbi's counterintelligence division. so just imagine at the end of 2016, jim clapper and john brennan and jim comey sitting in a room saying we don't like donald trump's positions, we should open an investigation and let it leak out later that he is a russian spy. the fbi r did this to henry wallace in the 1940s. if they did it to martin luther king in the '60s, george mcgovern in '72. if they don't like it they call you a communist they call you a russian dupe and then they let the propaganda and the press take over. >> tucker: why would liberals of all people stand by and allow that to happen? wasn't this their fever dream that some unaccountable cabal of bureaucrats in the national security state would subvert democracy? why are they saying something about this? >> because they hate donald trump that much. they don't like the man, they don't like his policies and they
see the only way for the best way to unseat him as using what we call the deep state. >> tucker: what does this mean for future presidents? pick a candidate. gets elected next time or the time after that, can any president really believe that his or her bureaucracy won't try to end thera presidency? >> no. i think that's exactly what the problem is. and what we need here is a robust congressional oversight, decades.haven't had in it should be up to the senate and house judiciary committees to put a stop to thisy kind of nonsense before it even -- even forms its own life. they could have smothered in the crib andot they didn't. >> tucker: they are cheering it on. thank you, it's greathe to see you, always. my pleasure, thanks for having me. >> tucker: the government shutdown continues on the border it remains a mess, obviously. gang members using illegal
>> tucker: a vicious ms-13 attack in new york is being blamed on america's gaping immigration locals. lopez and molina allegedly took part in an ms-13 assault on to new york high school students, both of the alleged assailants were detained at the border into thousand 16. but since they were unaccompanied minors at the time they were alloweded to settle in this country while awaiting deportation. of courseaw they were never deported, nobody ever is.
without the catch and release policy the crime likely wouldn't haveve happened. mark morgan was head of the border patrol under president obama. he was dismissed by president trump, but you should keep inis mind as you listen to him speak, and he joins us tonight. thanks very much for coming on tonight. so is it too much to say that this is a real-world example of what can happen if you have a dysfunctional immigration polic policy? >> that's absolutely right. and i think you said itut right, it's about the immigration process in this country across the board is broke. this is a great example. if they can look this up, florida's decision. that decision is what mandates united states border patrol to releaseor minor children. they only have a few amount of days and once they hit that they've got to release them. regardless if they've been properlyly vetted, regardless if they have a parent in the united states, they have to be released into the interior of the united states. >> tucker: so that's a judicial ruling that the court came up with that decision.
has congress ever acted on it? since clearly that's crazy, why doesn't the united states congress fix it? >> that's a great question.t another reason why i'm breaking my silence. because congress could fix this in 5 minutes if they wanted to. before i was the chief of border patrol i was with the fbi and actually supervised an ms-13 gang force in southern california.rc we used to catch them on surveillance wires and they would laugh. ms-13 w gang members would laugh how easy it was to go back and forth between the mexico and u.s. border. >> tucker: so we had a number of debates on the show with democrats who say there is something bigoted about criticizingay ms-13. as someone has it actually worked to apprehend them, how would you respond to that? >> that's ridiculous. ms-13 and i know this may be controversial but when the president refer to them as animals, i absolutely said that is correct. those ms-13 members and i couldd tell you again because i've worked -- i've been there as the chief. i've been to the detention facilities where i've walked up
to theseti individuals that are so-called minors, 17 or under it have looked at them and i looked at them eyes and i said that is a soon to be ms-13 gang member. it's unequivocal. >> tucker: and their victims are overwhelmingly immigrants themselves, right? >> that's another untold story that i'm glad you're talking aboutveve tonight. that's absolutely correct. that's another incredulous thing. if they absolutely pray on their own. >> tucker: so if you cared you would care about that. mr. morgan, thank you very much. great to see you. >> you bet. >> tucker: california hasas been staying up late thinking of new ways to make life harder for normal people, the ones who haven't moved to idaho yet. we will tell you what they're doing after the break. and it really shows. with all that usaa offers why go with anybody else? we know their rates are good, we know that they're always going to take care of us. it was an instant savings and i should have changed a long time ago. it was funny because when we would call another insurance company,
>> tucker: over the weekend a group of republican lawmakers and their many consultants future of thethe party. they are worried because republicansri share of national elections is shrinking. why is that? focus group experts say it's because of shifting demographics and the g.o.p. must win over more minority voters in order to survive, particularly hispanic voters and that's probably true. the question is, how do you do it? and the geniuses who won the republican party in washington think there's really only one way to win more hispanic votes, you need more illegal immigration if you need to give amnesty right away tomn those people who are already here illegally.ad democrats, needless to say, are cheering from the sidelines. theyy agree with this strongly, it helps them. what is it factually true as a
political matter? it's worth thinking aboutca tha. a closer look at the numbers suggest that hispanic opinion on immigration is a lot more complex than they are telling you onot television. a harvard harris poll last summer found that a majority of hispanics want stricter enforcement of america's immigration laws. according to a pew survey, meanwhile, only 14% of american hispanics think our country needs more immigrants. fully a quarter believe america has too many immigrants already. the most anti-immigration hispanics overall are those who are foreign-born, less educated and speak mostly spanish. why is that? it's obvious. these are the very people who face the stiffest competition over wages from future waves of lower skilled immigrants. so it turns out that openingso e borders is not the key to winning the hispanic vote. so what is the key? may be allowing parents to raise their own, children. how about that? turns out hispanic voters are a for that passionately.th
one pew survey showed that 73% of hispanic americans believe im is better to have one parent stay at home to raise children pther than having both parents work. if that's well above the national average on my question of about 60%. hispanics put their belief into practice too. 38% of hispanic mothers stay at home when their kids are small. that's 9% above the national average. think about what that means for a minute in political terms. three quarters of hispanic voters believe a parent should stay at home to raise children but less than half can actually afford to do that. that means there are millions of hispanic parents who wish they could be at home raising their kids but they can't be because they can't afford it. so here's a crazy idea for the republican party and its allegiance legions of overpaid consultants. why not work to give these voters what they want most? why not run on a platform that
unites children with their parents at home? 19 unhappy social activists on twitter would not like us but who cares? those people are miserable and pathetic there's no reason they should have this level of control over our society. how about ignoring them for onc once? republicans ought to make giving parents the choice to raise their own kids their party's top priority. hispanic voters would love that. voters of all colors would love that. why wouldn't they love that? nothing would make this a happier country. now we had to california, one of the greatest places to live in the world and it's becoming tougher to live in california by thenth day. what's happening? trace gallagher is on this story tonight for us. trace. >> how about a new water tax? gavin newsom hasn't said what the new tax would cost california residents but a similar proposal by former governor jerry brown would have run residence $0.95 a month. that measure was abandoned after failing to get support in the
legislature. he says this time around the effort is aimed at providing clean drinking water and some of the w state's rural towns and cities but the association of california water agencies says the tax is unnecessary because the state has many alternate funding solutions and the howard jarvis taxpayer association called the proposal an example of "california's knee-jerk reaction to default to a new tax kwhenever there is a new problem." meantime, california has already banned plastic bags and straws. now paper receipts are on the chopping block. one democratic state lawmaker wants to make it illegal to give out a paper receipt unless the customer specifically wants one. supporters say paper receipts are coded in unhealthy chemicals and, by the way, if this passes, each violation would result in a $25 fine for the businesses. >> tucker: that will work! trace gallagher, great to see you.
author and columnist mark steyn joins us tonight. sometimes you hear an idea that so brilliant it's a transformative idea, it's almost like when galileo got back from stargazing and hit you with it and it's like it make sense. iot s was walking on my trip toe markets eat today in san francisco and our people passed out and there's human feces all over the sidewalk. if only they would ban paper receipts, this would all be better. >> i think so. as trace was saying, these paper receipts contain a chemical called bpa, which if you eat it in high quantities can cause birth defects. clearly that's why california last year had the lowest fertility rate in its entire history because history aren't having any births because they are eating too many receipts. if t you go to a beverly hills restaurant and the waiter says you want the curly endive salad and the lady says no i'll just have the receipt and a glass of water -- oh, no, wait, just
bring me the receipt. i had a 40 receipts a day habit. i used to buy packs of cigarettes just so i could eat the receipts. actually think there's a serious point in this period the beneficiary of this would be the twitter guy who also makes these little square machines that you see which issue the electronic receipts. and if you think about it, just as social media has meant that news and information and knowledge is just in n the hands of four or five companies around the world now imagine if actual money just came under the control of the same four or five people who control social media? i would rather have a paper receipt than ther twitter guy controlling receipts. >> tucker: that's not actually a crazy thing to say because there are, as you know, proposals every year to do away with paper money and to make everything -- so why at a time
when big tech has shown no respect for the first amendment, freedom of association, really any right at all, why would we trust them to control all of our commercialou transactions? >> because i think there is now a generation of people who think this is entirely normal. i don't want to go all electromagnetic pulse w on you t one of the problems with that is if that ever does happen we will be going back to the mid-19th century but with a population that no longer knows what people knew in the mid-19th century including that it sometimes helps to be able to have paper receipts. itav sometimes helps not to deliver more and more of the daily functioning of the world into the same four or five companies. >> tucker: actually hadn't put those together but i should have. that's why we are always so i to have you won, mark steyn, a genius.
>> thanks a lot. >> tucker: thank you. so the latest fbi revelations, friday in "the new york times" we learned that the bureau didrk not agree with the president's policy positions on russia and so they accused him internally of being a spy for russia. are the democrats okay with that?em we will ask one after the break. ♪
♪ >> the people doing that investigation were people that have been caught that are known scoundrels. i guess you could say their dirty cops. >> tucker: that was the president today responding to the story on friday that the fbi tried to investigate him as a foreign spy. that happened, no one contestsbo that it did. how was the democratic party
viewing this development? 20 estimate is richard goodstein, he advised for bill and hillary clinton, good to see you tonight.gh >> thanks for having me. >> tucker: here's the core of "the new york times" story, the official watch the president on the campaign trail that watched him say, and i'm quoting now, from a press conference in july 26th i believe 2016 in florida, quote, "there's nothing i would rather do than have russia friendly as opposed to the way they are right now. wouldn't it be nice if we actually got along with, as an example, russia, i'm all for it." he says that, reflecting the views i think a lot of americans and they say he must be working for m putin, what's wrong with that? >> here's where i think you and most democrats disagree. as dick cheney said, with the russians did in the 2016 elections was an act of war. this was unprecedented. if you're talking your opening monologue about what was unprecedented about this investigation of donald trump. we could spend the rest of the show, not just the segment, listing all the things that he's done siding with putin in helsinki against our
intelligence agencies. that's unprecedented. the list goes on. >> tucker: let me ask you, there's no question that he has a different view from the neocon establishment in washington, the ones that have destroyed our country in the world and have never gone to great dome of prison unfortunately as a result of it they did. so he is different, there's no doubt about that but i'm just wondering is a kind of factual matter, is there something wrong -- if i were to say on the air i kind of like russia, or i think they are a lot better than china, t would that make my loyalty to america suspect? with that qualify me for an fbi investigation? >> no. but if you are a presidential candidate and said to the public, to the russians, please from hillary clinton, please steal from her, that would actually -- and that you actually knew at the intelligence agencies that the russians were stealing from her and that trump was using it hundreds of times and we actually don't know what else these intercepts -- we will. >> tucker: let me ask you this, do you think that it's
within bounds for the most powerful law enforcement agency in the world to see a politician they don't like, open an investigation into whether he committed treason, discovered that he had did not commit treason, filed no charge against him and then leaked the existence of that investigation to the press? to think that's an okay way to conduct business within the executive branch? are you comfortable with that? >> the predicate is that heom didn't commit treason, aiding and abetting youre enemy. actually i think of a public record we know that he kind of has, whether that rises to the that anybody in congress or the public -- >> tucker: hold on, talk about the law enforcement -- you don't agree with trump, i think that's fine. i have no interest in seeing the fbi opened an investigation into you for disagreeing with me because i'm not a fascist. but i'm just wondering if you think it's okay for a law enforcement agency to investigate a politician, finds no chargeable evidence and then leaked the fact they a investigated him in order to discredit him? are you comfortable with that standard? that's all i'm asking.
>> weco don't know that they haven't found chargeable evidence, one. >> tucker: what if they they charging?. >> let's see what mueller has to say. >> tucker: this isn't mueller. he's running a separate investigation. independence for mueller. this is the fbi. did they -- if they didn't find anything -- is it okay even if they did find something, shouldn't we learn about it in the filing of charges? is it okay to discredit politicians using a law enforcement agency? is that cool with you? >> when you say filing of charges i tend to agree i think with you that probably prosecuting a sitting president is not something that's considered appropriate. that's when impeachment is for. so again, your predicate for your kind of assertion about misconduct by the fbi is something that i just don't and i think most democrats and most of the public doesn't subscribe to, -- >> tucker: so it's okay. i just want to know what the standard going forward. president harris three years from now will have views that i don't agree n with, if i see the fbi to investigate her for having us boost for being too close to his back again or whatever but they don't charge or within a week that they
thought maybe she was a quisling, that's totally fine, it's not a big deal? >> if it was passing it was pakistan had a way to change the united states election and she consorted with them and her son david and her son and wanted her campaign chairman was an aid to the was pakistan government, he asked --o and actually change e platform of the democratic party to healthiest pakistanis, yeah. >> tucker: can i just asked one must question? do you think it's moral -- for me as a parent for example to say i don't think that my son should fight for the territorial integrity erie of ukraine or my somehow working for putin if i thinkor that? >> look, people have different views as to what's the standard by which their people --is their flesh and blood should be committed to the defense of the united states. >> tucker: so why should i care -- why should i careed abot whether russia invades ukraine? i'm not against ukraine. i'm an american, why do i care? >> if you look at the russian pressau i think you are coming o
that donald trump is sorry, a stooge. and therefore they can get away with things in ukraine. >> tucker: but why do i care? just tell me super quick why do i care if they take over ukraine met i'm not calling for that -- so they are going to invade liechtenstein the next. >> not liechtenstein. i think we know that they are meddling in brexit and these elections in france and elsewhere. england.: invading >> they are doing it. >> tucker: thank you so much, good to see you. we are still waiting breathlessly for the course of the mueller report. for some the final import is anticipated like the rapture, a religious event that will expose and destroy the incubus that is donald trump. >> i personally think that what mueller is heading to is not n only the indictments, because remember there may be more. he's not going to -- there may be more coming on the pipe. but also a report that discloses the extent to which trump and his family are compromised by
the russians. >> tucker: copper mice. how do i get to be a cnn analyst. low bar obviously. others are more cautious. they are warning mueller's report could be a disappointment in the end. >> people were closest to what he has been doing, have interacted with the special counsel have cautioned me that this report is almost certain to be anticlimactic. >> tucker: can start as a former independent counsel, the author of the book contempt, a memoir of the clinton investigation and he joins us tonight. thank you very much for coming on. >> thank you. >> tucker: i'm not sure which i'm rootingng for, the anticlimactic version of the reportrt for the report that actually answers the questions outstanding but if it turns out the report does not find the president colluded with russia and goes in another direction, shouldn't mueller offer some kind of apology are gumming up the wheels of government for two years and destroying public -- i'm serious and destroying publish confidence in every institution this countrynd has? >> i understand. i have a different view. and that view is that mueller
should bring this to a close. we have needed to know the answer about collusion for a long time and i think he knows that answer and i wish we would know that pretty darn soon. because that goes to the heart of american politics, et cetera. our relationship withth russia. but here's why i'm not subscribing to the anti-mueller view. all of the republican leadership agreesll let him finish his wor. bill barr, the nominee and who sue is superbly qualified is now saying let him finish his work and that's what i want him to do. i will say -- >> tucker: let me just say there's no group i respect less. that holds no water with me. i'm just wondering as an american, why wouldn't the interest of the country, for all of the stuff? howof are we benefiting from his protracted investigation? >> because bob mueller has been finding stuff that needed to be found out. specifically the 13 russian individuals in the two organizations, you've read those
indictments from some few months ago. ands that tells a very powerful story about russian interference. it's an indictment but it goes to the fundamental point. it doesn'ts have one word in those 35 pages and one indictment, that suggest collusion. so there's interference in the trump administration. so leave congress aside. at the trump administration agrees that there wasea interference. and their sanctions against russia and russian individuals because of interference. now, in terms of the report i hope that the report will in fact be aa report that is consistent with department of justice practice, which is you don't bring scurrilous charges. if you don't make charges against peoplech in reports. you either charge them, that is to say you file an indictment, eor you don't. and i think that's bob mueller's ultimate responsibility. listen, one of the many problems, as you know, with the
independent counsel, which i served, it called for this vast report to do what? to go to the house of representatives for purpose of the impeachment. let's get the justice department out of that business entirely. >> tucker: just leaking against people they don't like. >> that is terrible. inha fact, let me comment on tht if i may. >> tucker: very quickly if you would. >> when i read "the new york times" article, my first reaction was we need an investigation right now as to whost leaked this. we think we know. what was their motivation and why the timing? this was many months ago and there's been no suggestion whatsoever to support this outrageous charge against the president. >> tucker: pretty scary. ken starr, thank you very much. >> my pleasure. >> tucker: kelsey gabbard from hawaii is running for president asaske a democrat. some of our foreign policy news diverts from those with the officials in washington so they're trying to destroy andin
>> ♪ >> ♪ ♪ >> tucker: it's been close to two months now but the yellow jacket -- red yellow vest rather in france are going on. it began as a protest against the gas tax imposed to fight global warming but not have a new enemy, speed cameras. the french government recently admitted that protesters have destroyed about 60% of the speed cameras in all of france.
you might think global warming and speed cameras are not related, but they are. both our weapons are leaders use to bully the population. left to impose gas taxes on everyone else while flying private to conferences in switzerland where they worry about melting ice caps. if that's obviously a scam, let's just be honest about it. speed cameras meanwhile are not about safety. studies have shown that actually spincrease accidents by making people slow down abruptly. at the b goal of cameras is noto help you but to take your money. this is government as opposition. government hurting you on purpose for its own gain. our leaders don't care. they don't drive their own cars, they are not afflicted. now the yellow vest are reacting, the same reasons that people all over the world are angry because their governments have stopped treating the well-being of ordinary people as their top priority. america doesn't have yellow vest. the only people who write in this country are antifa. so here's a suggestion, instead
of spending your time screaming at people in restaurants or smashing moss covered statues, why not knock over a speed camera or to? be vandalism, we are nott encouraging it but at least you might be helping somebody. of course they won't do that. they don't fight the system, they fight to preserve it. back in america kelsey gabbard announced that she was running for president last week and since then she has been savaged by the left. she's been smeared as a puppet because she opposes keeping american troops in the country. while mike. she's also beene accused of the country for opposing gay marriage in 2004. when barack obama and hillary clinton and every other mental democrat -- front of the intercept of the us tonight. this is not a defense of her, i'm just watching this a and thinking when did tulsi gabbard get to be the enemy of everyone? what is going on here?
>> i am not a supporter of congresswoman -- her candidacy. at the democratic the democratic party liberals about some of her support for the war oned terror, her affinity for hindu nationalism in india, or affection for some really terrible dictators that i think she should answer for it and clear about but what's really going on is twofold. one is that in that 2016 she resigned from the democratic national committee because she accused debbie wasserman schultz and the dnc of cheating on behalf of hillary and unsupported bernie sanders, so democrats hate her for that. but theyey also hater because she's been questioning a lot of washington orthodoxy that both political parties support, including why it p is that we continue to try and change the regimes of countries far away like in syria why we continue to prop up regimes that make the world hate us like we do in
saudi arabia. so for better or for worse she deviates from a lot of the washington consensus. she's hard to put into a liberal or a conservative or a right wing or left wing box and that's whats washington really hits the most, people who are kind of independent-minded and critical thinkers. >> tucker: but there's something so stealthy and feline and dishonest about the way they are attacking her. if you don't like our foreign policy views, let's just say so. but no one ever really wants to debate what our foreign policy should be. theyey just attack anybody who deviates from their own dumb ideas, have you noticed that? >> i think there's one particular smear that has become extremely pervasive in u.s. discourse, that is central to sustaining the united states as a country endless war. if you don't support a particular war that washington wants to remove a particular leader you get accused of being a supporter of that dictator. in 2002-03, people against the iraq war were accused often on this network but others as well
of ridiculously accused of loving saddam hussein. people whoho opposed the intervention in libya in 2011 were accused of being apologists for colonel qaddafi and now she is being accused of being a supporter of someone that she actually called a brutal dictator because she's asking why it is that we are spending a billion dollars a year, or were, arming rebels we don't know, trying to remove the leader of a foreign country and engaging in all kinds of policies that are actually worsening the security of the united states rather than helping them. you can criticize her but to accuse her of being a supporter of or a best friend of -- as claire mccaskill put it, it's just idiotic but it's really toxic as well but it's the kind of the argument hauled out always to defend washington foreign policy. >> tucker: it's the kind of argument that ends the argument. at
glenn greenwald, thank you for your insight. that's it for us tonight, we will be back. i have no fear. tomorrow night, 8:00 p.m., the show that is the sworn enemy of lying, pomposity and groupthink. we hope you will join us then. guess who is next, you guessed it. nine seconds early. >> sean: people always ask, how many seconds did tucker steal from your show? but he is an interesting man. the whole debate about, what is described as media, we know theo networks, newspapers and cable channels are fake news and they have agendas, they are people who are nonpolitical. and i'm interested in that. welcome to "hannity." this takes a lot of explaining. we will make it very understandable, break it down for f you. it's the abuse of power